In reply to UKC News:
Throughout this thread there have been some questions regarding ‘what happened’ between ME ascent and Nic’s repeat. I can shed some light…
The February 2010 issue of Climb magazine featured a full page article and picture of ME’s new route ‘The First and Last’ on Penwith Wall at Lands End graded E8 6b/c and, as I live in Cornwall, I was intrigued. By chance, the following weekend, Miles Gibson was visiting from Sheffield and on the afternoon of Friday 12th February we tried the line.
We both flashed the route on top rope and a number of characteristics of the route were immediately obvious:
1) The line of the route had been very heavily cleaned with most of the remaining rock scars now featuring positive, incut finger jugs.
2) More or less evenly spaced throughout the hard climbing were blatantly drilled slots for small cams
3) The climbing was significantly easier than the grade suggested.
Penwith Wall is unusual for granite because it is covered with many natural pocket features but these are measured in millimetres and totally different in size and style to the clearly man-made slots – to suggest that the cam placements we discovered were natural is ludicrous.
Miles and I were keen to lead the route then and there but because the route requires x4 small cams in just two sizes, we didn’t have sufficient cams with us (for the record there is a fifth drilled cam placement at the crux but it is poor and it is much easier to quickly pull through to better holds than to mess about placing it).
Both Miles and I were disgusted by the drilling but felt it was better to repeat the route before commenting on the vandalism.
A few weeks later I was back on the route, this time belayed by my girlfriend and with the intention of leading the route now that I had a sufficient number of the correct sized cams (many thanks Black Diamond!). I had a total mental meltdown on the lead and ended up slumped on a cam (err… many thanks again Black Diamond!). It had been about a decade since I had headpointed a route and although my body was still capable my mind wasn’t having any of it. I decided to forget about the route for the time being, do lots of onsighting and come back to it later in the year.
At the beginning of July, our friends Nic & Katherine Sellers was visiting and you know the story from here…
The suggestion that ‘climbers unknown’ have been stalking ME for over two decades across international boarders to vandalise his routes after his ‘first ascents’ (which are often not publicised widely) is delusional.
The fact that ME has not provided high resolution images of the first ascent (these obviously exist, having been featured in Climb, and could be used to compare the approximate location and size of the cams used by both ME and Nic) is odd. Just think how you would react if accused in this way? Would you not rush to provide the evidence that may prove your innocence? Finally, think how your friends would react to this kind of criticism? The lack of the ‘seven witnesses’ testimony only hardens my suspicions.
Unfortunately, the saga of the wanton vandalism of Cornish sea cliffs doesn’t end there.
On Sunday 11th July I visited Folly Cove with Chris Hutchins (another visiting climbing friend from Sheffield) to check out another new ME E8 reported in Climb magazine earlier in 2010.
Chris has written this about the day:
------------------------------------------------------------
I went climbing with Shane Ohly on Saturday July 10th then on Sunday 11th we went to check out Redemption at Folly Cove. The route was clear from the description in the brief note in Climb magazine so we abseiled down the line and were disappointed to discover that there were three sica holds on the route. My personal opinion is that the use of sica on these holds was unnecessary. The first of these three holds (Sica Hold 1) is a jug which could have had stress cracks around it or not but has adequate holds just above and below it and another jug not far above this. The second hold (Sica Hold 2) has a smooth flat positive edge created by the
sica. The underlying nature of this hold is impossible to ascertain but there are smaller alternatives that would not make the route much harder than it already is. The third hold (Sica Hold 3) is an obvious Gaston and crucial to the top sequence. If this was to fall off a harder sequence using the much smaller hold below it and harder moves to holds above it would be necessary. It would however still be climbable but not necessarily by myself. It saddens me that sica was used on this route either to maintain the route in its current state or improve it from its original form as ultimately I feel it was unnecessary.
These thoughts only really formed later and we focused on climbing the route that day. We both top roped the route twice each and with a rapidly approaching tide I quickly led the route with the gear we pre placed earlier but still left Shane with the water splashing at his feet by the time I topped out. The route felt well protected for the grade with good gear evenly spaced up the gently overhanging wall. A climber with lots of fitness and good, quick gear finding and placing skills should find it a good onsight target.
I suspect this might create a further debate but I have tried to be as objective as possible with my comments and information and tried not to cast aspersions. However defamation of the rock is bad and should be questioned.
I am including attachments of the three holds in question, which were taken on abseil after the ascent. The second hold needed cleaning to expose the sica from the chalk we had been using hence the wet appearance (a little bit of spit on my brush). I have a few more but they are not as clear as these were all taken on my mobile phone.
------------------------------------------------------------
END
I understand that UKC have contacted ME about the sica holds and he has admitted that he placed the sica to ‘stabilise’ the rock.
This makes no sense to me as the entire route is friable and should an original hold have broken off at the location of Sica Hold 1 and 2, there are alternative holds close by and there would be little change in difficulty. Sica Hold 3 is crucial to current easiest sequence but there is so much sica around it, that it is impossible to tell whether the feature has been stabilised or created. Without any doubt the top sequence could be climbed without this hold; again the sica is unnecessary.
My overall opinion is that the sica has been used to reduce the general difficulties of the route. Another line that could have been climbed by a more talented climber has been lost.
It is interesting to note that adjacent to Redemption is Hallow Man, another notorious ME route (because of the use of a bolt - rotting rust stain still clearly visible - and other fixed protection). This route has also had sica added to a number of holds.
Sica Hold 1:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150200
Sica Hold 2:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150201
Sica Hold 3:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=150202
Shane Ohly, Cornwall